At the beginning of the new year it is customary to review the happenings of the prior year. So let’s look at some illustrative events and non-events for our county government. One of the matters that continued throughout the year
At the beginning of the new year it is customary to review the happenings of the prior year. So let’s look at some illustrative events and non-events for our county government.
One of the matters that continued throughout the year 2007 was the proposed bill in the County Council concerning vacation rentals. It was the subject of a number of executive sessions by the council and frequent deferrals. The principal issue involved is rather simple. Nearly 20 years ago the county adopted an ordinance that divided the county into two areas:
• Visitor destination areas (VDAs) composed of Princeville, Kapa‘a, Lihu‘e and Po‘ipu.
• The rest of the county.
Clearly it was intended that accommodations for transients such as hotels and timeshares should be only in the VDAs. However, inept drafting of the ordinance left uncertainty as to whether vacation rentals would be permissible in the non-VDAs. An opinion was given by a deputy county attorney that vacation rentals in non-VDAs were not expressly prohibited. In consequence, numerous properties in non-VDAs are now vacation rentals. Most of the testimony on the bill was from owners and lawyers for owners of such properties. It was claimed by them that severe hardships would occur if rentals to visitors could not continue. In line with their proclivity to avoid tough decisions the bill remains unresolved in a divided council.
In August the mayor proposed that there should be a moratorium on subdivision developments on agricultural zoned lands. The proposal lay dormant in the Planning Commission for almost three months but has now been transmitted to the council. The reason for the mayor’s request is readily apparent. Most of the new construction of residences in the county since 2000 has been for transients. Subdividing ag lands has been a well-traveled path to create upscale housing for wealthy visitors and it is depleting our rural properties. The moratorium bill is quite porous as it exempts pending applications with “preliminary approval” and it does not cover rezonings or CPRs. But when hearings begin on the bill we can expect the pro-development coterie to try to prevent any encroachments on its prerogatives. Is it realistic to expect our council to resist them?
The policy of the state sunshine law is that governmental processes should be open to public scrutiny. This policy does not resonate well at the County Council. Apparently council members believe it is better to discuss policy matters in secret behind closed doors than in open sessions. In 2007 the council convened nearly 100 executive sessions.
A member of the public has challenged the legality of many of these sessions as being in violation of the County Charter. Despite his ongoing request for a statement of any reason why his contentions might be in error, to date the council has simply stonewalled the matter. Clearly the council is comfortable with the practices being followed and are untroubled by its potential illegality. Sadly, they do not seem to feel any duty to provide answers to responsible questions raised by the people they are supposed to serve.
In 2006 the commission then serving for Charter Review completed its activities after over 60 meetings and submitted 15 proposals for voter determination in the November election of that year. One of these called for creating a continuing commission to review the Charter for potential amendments and it was solidly adopted by the voters who presumably recognized that important items had been omitted from the submissions by the 2006 commission.
The new commission met only three times in 2007 and heard testimony for less than 30 minutes. Its last scheduled meeting was cancelled presumably for absence of a quorum. Members of the commission are not yet receiving communications made to it by the public. The new commission is evidently heeding administration pressure to avoid having any measure that might be controversial presented for voter decision this year. Serving the public interest does not seem to be a matter of concern to the new commission members.
2007 was a year where, although county officials continued to expend taxpayer money, they largely sidestepped actions that would be beneficial to our citizens. Save a non-binding resolution, neither the council nor the mayor took a position on the Superferry. No progress was made on the critical solid waste disposal issue. The administration failed to provide the council with meaningful data on costs and plans for the largely stalled Eastside walk or bike path.
It appears to many citizens that our county officials are increasingly detached from meaningful and effective government of our county. One recent letter in the Forum noted the frequency of letters deploring the performance by our elected representatives and urged concerned citizens to be candidates for public office. That could be a solution to the claimed deficiencies of our present incumbents, but it would require an electorate that cares about the quality of our governance and, while we should be hopeful, there is no clear indication that such an attitude now generally prevails.
• Walter Lewis is a resident of Princeville and writes a bi-weekly column for The Garden Island.
